If Monetary Policy Has a Zero Bound Problem, So Does Fiscal Policy

Paul Krugman on why 'unconventional' fiscal policy does not eliminate the zero bound problem:

Some comments on my post on the true cost of fiscal stimulus argue that the zero lower bound aka liquidity trap isn't really binding, because the Fed is using other measures to expand the economy. A few commenters imply that I haven't been paying attention.

Well, yes I'm aware that BB is doing a bunch of unconventional stuff. But the available -- albeit thin -- evidence is that it takes a huge expansion of the Fed's balance sheet to accomplish as much as would be achieved by a quite modest cut in the Fed funds rate. And the Fed isn't willing to expand its balance sheet to the $10 trillion or so it would take to be as expansionary as it "should" be given, say, a Taylor rule.

Which means that the zero bound is still binding, which means that right now we're very much still in liquidity trap territory.

It is not an unreasonable position to take - that unconvential fiscal policy can work but due to practical issues has limited effectiveness.

But when you think about it, does that not sound an awful lot like fiscal policy? That, as Robert Barro points out that you need a great deal of it because the multiplier is likely to be small. And as I have pointed out many times fiscal policy operates with too much of a lag to be useful in the real world.

Krugman is an unflinching supporter of fiscal policy yet (correctly) identifies the drawbacks to unconvential monetary policy. I wonder how he would reconcile these views.